tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2009823380872888894..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Allopatric Speciation Tested in MartiniqueUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger194125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24156283457707827202012-02-29T18:59:08.666-08:002012-02-29T18:59:08.666-08:00PaV Lino
Thorton: "Now where's that po...<i>PaV Lino <br /><br />Thorton: "Now where's that positive evidence for ID?<br /><br />The power of ID is its "explanatory power"<br /><br />(snip the rest of the off topic blithering)</i><br /><br />PaV, you forgot to provide your positive evidence for ID.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25303598522660521462012-02-29T18:06:51.022-08:002012-02-29T18:06:51.022-08:00Thorton:
Now where's that positive evidence f...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>Now where's that positive evidence for ID?</i><br /><br />The power of ID is its "explanatory power". It makes more sense out of what modern molecular biology finds out each day. With time, Darwin will be able to explain less and less, and ID more and more. That's my prediction. What's yours? ;)<br /><br />If ID is all about religious motives, then why are even atheists its defenders and promoters? Why would an atheist want to promote religion, even indirectly? But, alas, I think you're not ready to change your mind here.<br /><br />As to "evidence" for Darwinian evolution, your link to Talks.Origins has a section on "speciation events", which interests me the most. But why do they call them "speciation" events? Why aren't they called "sub-species" events? <br /><br />They talk about maize and radishes and cabbage--brought about via hybridization. The proper word for it: artificial selection. They talk about Drosophila. And, again, most of this work is done in labs, and has all the hallmarks of artificial selection. I find nothing compelling in this evidence. This is the problem I have with Darwinism.<br /><br />For me, the heart of the issue is this: are "varieties" variations of stable species, or, are they variations on their way to divergence from their parent species? <br /><br />BTW: do you work at U of O?Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63320761512632233862012-02-27T18:37:30.897-08:002012-02-27T18:37:30.897-08:00PaV Lino
Thorton: I dismiss them for the same rea...<i>PaV Lino<br /><br />Thorton: I dismiss them for the same reason I dismiss the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. You have NO evidence to make your case, NONE at all.<br /><br />The real question is: Does Darwinism have evidence supporting it?</i><br /><br />Yes PaV, <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" rel="nofollow">it does.</a><br /><br />Now where's that positive evidence for ID?<br /><br /><i>Nevertheless, he neither saw the possibility that truly novel species could arise via Darwin's proposed theory, nor did he see evidence of it.</i><br /><br />That was 145 years ago. Science has made just a *bit* of progress since then. Jenkin was proved wrong. Deal with it.<br /><br /><i>That was 145 years ago. If it was logically falsifiable then, what makes it logically true now?</i><br /><br />It wasn't logically falsifiable then or now.<br /><br /><i>But we don't even have a hint that it is possible.</i><br /><br />Science has lots of hints. Don't project your personal ignorance onto everyone else.<br /><br /><i>That's what ID is about. Not the religious motivations you ascribe to it.</i><br /><br />Sorry PaV, that's still bullcrap no matter how many times you repeat it. If ID had even the slightest bit of scientific merit it would do research and publish results like every other science. But it doesn't.<br /><br /><i>Science suffers in the meantime.</i><br /><br />(Looks at the over 2.6 million articles published on all aspects of evolution in the last hundred years. Looks at the thousands of colleges and university labs still producing positive evidence. Looks at the hundreds of successful biotech companies that use the evolutionary paradigm for their work.<br /><br />Then looks at the professional liars of the Discovery Institute, and the clown circus that is Uncommonly Dense)<br /><br />Science doesn't seem to be suffering too much to me PaV.<br /><br /><i>Jonathan Wells has, of course, written a book on the entire debate.</i><br /><br />LOL! Sure thing PaV. "Moonie" Wells writes a popular press propaganda rag to make money off the IDiot true believers. That sure carries a lot of weight in the scientific community.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1056052559410446512012-02-27T10:05:02.860-08:002012-02-27T10:05:02.860-08:00Thorton:
You mean ID's "prediction"...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>You mean ID's "prediction" that non-coding DNA would still have some use that ID made after-the-fact? </i><br /><br />BTW, I think you're making an "after-the-fact evaluation of what really happened. A little Monday-morning quarterbacking of the actual debate. Jonathan Wells has, of course, written a book on the entire debate.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52631690160066646322012-02-27T09:57:16.544-08:002012-02-27T09:57:16.544-08:00Thorton:
I dismiss them for the same reason I dis...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>I dismiss them for the same reason I dismiss the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. You have NO evidence to make your case, NONE at all.</i><br /><br />The real question is: Does Darwinism have evidence supporting it?<br /><br />I mentioned Fleeming Jenkin. He was a contemporary of Darwin. Even in his critique of Darwin's theory, he acknowledged that not only was the theory highly plausible when it advanced the idea that slight betterments could accrue, but he felt there was evidence for it. He also thought Darwin was due much credit for the way in which he cleverly presented his theory---a keen insight, he thought. In his critique, there is not even a hint of religious motivation . In fact, he says that the criticisms of those who oppose Darwin's ideas simply on religious grounds, are to be dismissed.<br /><br />Nevertheless, he neither saw the possibility that truly novel species could arise via Darwin's proposed theory, nor did he see evidence of it. <br /><br />At the end of his 22 page critique, he judged Darwin's theory proven false, based not on the facts that Darwin adduced, but simply on rational grounds. And he said no matter how plausible a theory, we should not accept it until it was proven true.<br /><br />That was 145 years ago. If it was logically falsifiable then, what makes it logically true now?<br /><br />ID---which is actually an outgrowth of advances in molecular biology---simply takes the arguments Jenkin advanced in 1867, and gives them further substance. What he rejected 'in theory', we can point to 'in fact'.<br /><br />Even then, in 1867, Jenkin wondered, based on Darwin's notion that species plasticity remains undiminished up to even the "class" level, why breeders couldn't turn a dog into a cat. (Huxley had similar reservations) That, to me, remains the challenge. But we don't even have a hint that it is possible.<br /><br />That's what ID is about. Not the religious motivations you ascribe to it. IMHO,you employ the "Creationist" ad hominem only because it makes it easy for you to comfortably turn away from all the evidence which logically contradicts Darwinian suppositions. Science suffers in the meantime.Lino Di Ischiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904662370561530557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8797483105068200152012-02-24T09:39:32.511-08:002012-02-24T09:39:32.511-08:00Still getting attributions wrong.
natschuster: ...Still getting attributions wrong. <br /><br /><br /><b>natschuster</b>: <i>It seems to be saying that most of the variety was found in one location, dated to 530 million years ago. There where some more primitve forms from 542 million years ago. </i><br /><br />The author is showing the the divergence of body plans begins with a complex organism, and that the documentary evidence for the evolution of euarthropods is consistent with step-wise evolutionary development.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4754829707094248562012-02-24T06:57:11.158-08:002012-02-24T06:57:11.158-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15563744619087937422012-02-24T03:56:36.644-08:002012-02-24T03:56:36.644-08:00Semantics is the last refuge of someone caught bei...Semantics is the last refuge of someone caught being dishonest without outright lying. Yes, skimming is technically reading. For that matter reading the first word of the title of a paper and nothing else is technically "reading" it. The point is that you made no attempt to actually <em>comprehend</em> the paper. You read enough to be able to quote it, and then dismissed it as though you were informed enough to do so.Venture Freehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17667967894208257738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-73865635332320632672012-02-23T13:11:48.751-08:002012-02-23T13:11:48.751-08:00Apart from long idling periods without change what...Apart from long idling periods without change whats even more interesting is cross-continental synchronized changes over vast periods of time, the sabre-tooth being one example.<br /><br />It all tells us evolution was pre-programmed by an Intelligent Designer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41116661651223041342012-02-23T11:07:03.791-08:002012-02-23T11:07:03.791-08:00Skimming isn't reading?Skimming isn't reading?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43397150082535077672012-02-23T10:43:09.020-08:002012-02-23T10:43:09.020-08:00natschuster
I skimmed the rest of the article, I ...<i>natschuster<br /><br />I skimmed the rest of the article, I must confess, becuase it didn't seem to be addressing the area where I was having trouble.</i><br /><br />So you lied when you said you read the paper. Got it.<br /><br />The main area where you seem to having trouble is <b>honesty.</b> No one here can help you with that nat.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52659054854609006892012-02-23T07:39:43.858-08:002012-02-23T07:39:43.858-08:00I skimmed the rest of the article, I must confess,...I skimmed the rest of the article, I must confess, becuase it didn't seem to be addressing the area where I was having trouble.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68455316893861381892012-02-23T07:38:28.976-08:002012-02-23T07:38:28.976-08:00This passage is what I was talking about:
Panarth...This passage is what I was talking about:<br /><br />Panarthropods are likely a monophyletic taxon, sharing a body<br />pattern which includes the following several important characteristics:<br />a segmented body, paired appendages, and a chitinous<br />cuticle that they molt during ecdysis (Ruppert et al., 2004). The<br />presence of pyramid-yolk embryos (Chen et al., 2004c) and late<br />developing embryos with segmented germ band (Chen, 2004;<br />Steiner et al., 2004) at very basal part of the Lower Cambrian<br />Meishucun phosphate deposits suggest that they were deeply<br />rooted at very beginning of Cambrian about 542 million years ago<br />or even before. The exceptionally well-preserved fossil fauna<br />from the 530 million years old Maotianshan Shale deposits<br />provides a fossil record of remarkably diverse arthropods that<br />embrace a number of body organizations representing of different<br />evolutionary stages, including worm-like stem lineage<br />panarthropods referred to as Tardiopolypoda (Chen and Zhou,<br />1997); stem lineage arthropods (proarthropods) (Chen, 2004;<br />Waloszeck et al., 2005);’stem lineage euarthropods; and the<br />possible ancestral form of the two major extant euarthropod<br />groups, e.g, Chelicerata (Chen et al., 2004b) and Mandibulata<br />(Chen et al., 2001). These nested body plans of different evolutionary<br />stages suggest the presence of step-wise and condensed<br />evolutionary events, which led in the line of evolution from wormlike<br />ancestor to euarthropods within a short geological time of<br />about 12 million years in the Early Cambrian.<br />Body plans of the stem groups of the Panarthropoda<br /><br />It seems to be saying that most of the variety was found in one location, dated to 530 million years ago. There where some more primitve forms from 542 million years ago.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86055810643395128942012-02-23T07:13:54.784-08:002012-02-23T07:13:54.784-08:00natschusterFeb 23, 2012 07:01 AM
I did read it.
...<i>natschusterFeb 23, 2012 07:01 AM<br /><br />I did read it. </i><br /><br />Sure you did nat. Between 12:45 AM EST when I posted the link and 8 AM EST when you responded you read and digested a 20 page, highly technical research paper. <br /><br />You're the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_Ruiz" rel="nofollow">Rosie Ruiz</a> of truth seekers Mr. science teacher!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63940921204217937772012-02-23T07:01:51.412-08:002012-02-23T07:01:51.412-08:00I did read it. Maybe I misinterpreted it. I do tha...I did read it. Maybe I misinterpreted it. I do that sometimes. That's why I'm asking for clarity.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44837450831314618642012-02-23T06:12:09.650-08:002012-02-23T06:12:09.650-08:00Why am I not surprised natschuster was too lazy to...Why am I not surprised natschuster was too lazy to read the actual paper?<br /><br />I suppose when your purpose is not to learn but just to troll there's no reason to read.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77804315087766540772012-02-23T05:20:39.577-08:002012-02-23T05:20:39.577-08:00It seems to me that the article is saying that the...It seems to me that the article is saying that the pararthopods showed up, with a great deal fo variation in body types, and at different "steps" in evolutionary development, at the same time, in the Basal Cambrian.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81596347126949780672012-02-22T21:47:13.526-08:002012-02-22T21:47:13.526-08:00natschuster
I don't understand something. Whe...<i>natschuster<br /><br />I don't understand something. When Dr. Jun-Yuan Chen wrote that there was a "progression of step-wise changes" among the pararthtopods, was this before the basic plans for the phyla showed up, or after? </i><br /><br />Here's access to the whole paper. Open the link and click PDF full text.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/paper.php?doi=10.1387/ijdb.072513cj" rel="nofollow">The sudden appearance of diverse animal body plans during the Cambrian explosion </a><br /><br />Read the whole thing, then tell us what it says in your own words.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52027605922401119082012-02-22T21:16:44.494-08:002012-02-22T21:16:44.494-08:00I don't understand something. When Dr. Jun-Yua...I don't understand something. When Dr. Jun-Yuan Chen wrote that there was a "progression of step-wise changes" among the pararthtopods, was this before the basic plans for the phyla showed up, or after? Was the difference between pararthropods and the other groups that the former continued to evolve while the others froze? I read up some of the literature, and I can't seem to get a clear understanding.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72218208041116148902012-02-22T19:45:07.346-08:002012-02-22T19:45:07.346-08:00Ritchie,
I responded to your messages in the next...Ritchie,<br /><br />I responded to your messages in the next thread.wgbutler777https://www.blogger.com/profile/13874808002987982750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3352535456384863092012-02-22T17:33:01.600-08:002012-02-22T17:33:01.600-08:00Scott,
My reply to this message is in the next th...Scott,<br /><br />My reply to this message is in the next thread.wgbutler777https://www.blogger.com/profile/13874808002987982750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11909219617680080062012-02-22T15:58:31.649-08:002012-02-22T15:58:31.649-08:00Looks like more good old fashioned lying for Jesus...<i><br />Looks like more good old fashioned lying for Jesus by the evangelistic writer.<br /></i><br /><br />Since Cornelius has created a new story, I will respond to this there..wgbutler777https://www.blogger.com/profile/13874808002987982750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20488909955106297292012-02-22T12:17:19.386-08:002012-02-22T12:17:19.386-08:00natschuster
If a thing has characteristics that w...<i>natschuster<br /><br />If a thing has characteristics that we see in designed things only, then that would qualify as evidence of design.</i><br /><br />What characteristics would those be nat? It can't be mere complexity, because naturally occurring processes have been empirically observed to create complexity. It can't be irreducible complexity, because naturally occurring processes have been empirically observed to create irreducibly complex features too. It can't be specificity, because you have no way of determining after-the-fact what any pre-specification might have been.<br /><br />IDiots have been trying for years to define their way out of the problem, coming up with dozens of meaningless buzzterms, but the fatal flaw is always the same. You have yet to demonstrate any characteristic in biological life that can <b>only</b> be caused by intelligent design.<br /><br /><i>To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever scene something like a prototype model,then subsequent modifications on later versions outside of designed things.</i><br /><br />No one's ever seen it in biological life forms either. Are all the different breeds of dogs we see today just modifications to the prototype wolf? When were these prototype modifications manufactured and delivered?<br /><br /><i>I don't recall anyone ever saying an image of the Virgin Mary on a pancake was designed.</i><br /><br />Lots of people saw it and said it "looked designed." Why isn't their subjective opinion as good as yours?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-193213708605715832012-02-22T11:25:48.728-08:002012-02-22T11:25:48.728-08:00If a thing has characteristics that we see in desi...If a thing has characteristics that we see in designed things only, then that would qualify as evidence of design. The overall pattern of life has characteristics of designed things. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever scene something like a prototype model,then subsequent modifications on later versions outside of designed things. Star formation? The individual star changes, not "later models." Galaxies? Same as stars.<br /><br />I don't recall anyone ever saying an image of the Virgin Mary on a pancake was designed. I was under the impression they just said it was a miracle or a sign.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37171251224252010822012-02-22T10:29:03.093-08:002012-02-22T10:29:03.093-08:00natschuster
A bunch of stones arrainged in a circ...<i>natschuster<br /><br />A bunch of stones arrainged in a circle is considered evidence of design of an ancient hearth because it looks designed. </i> <br /><br />Scientific evidence is gathered data that is <b>objectively</b>, not <b>subjectively</b>, determined to be relevant.<br /><br />A circle of stones may be objectively compared to other known human-produced hearths to determine if it was a human-produced firepit.<br /><br />Some people see The Virgin Mary's face on a grilled cheese sandwich and think it "looks designed". What are your <b>objective</b> criteria for "looks designed" in a biological object? Please list them. <br /><br /><i>And as far as the details go "we hope to have an answer for you someday.</i><br /><br />Then that's the day your IDiot claims will be taught in a science classroom.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.com